Weekly Standard's Hayes falsely claimed polls show support for Bush on NSA spying
SUMMARY: Weekly Standard's Stephen Hayes falsely claimed that public polling shows "support" for the National Security Agency's warrantless domestic spy program. In fact, an AP/Ipsos poll released January 6 shows that 56 percent of Americans said the Bush administration "[s]hould ... be required to get a warrant from a judge before monitoring phone and internet communications between American citizens in the United States and suspected terrorists."
Appearing as a panelist on the January 8 broadcast of Eye on Washington, a political talk program that airs on CBS affiliate WUSA-TV in Washington, D.C., Weekly Standard senior writer Stephen F. Hayes falsely claimed that public polling shows "support" for the National Security Agency's (NSA) warrantless domestic spy program. In fact, an Associated Press/Ipsos poll released January 6 shows that a majority of Americans, 56 percent, said the Bush administration "[s]hould ... be required to get a warrant from a judge before monitoring phone and internet communications between American citizens in the United States and suspected terrorists." Forty-two percent said that Bush "should ... be allowed to monitor such communications without a warrant," and the remaining 2 percent were not sure.
As The New York Times first revealed on December 16, President Bush issued a secret presidential order -- which he said he reauthorized "more than 30 times" -- shortly after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The order permitted the NSA to eavesdrop on international phone and email communications that originate from or are received within the United States and to do so without the court approval normally required under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
Media conservatives have been quick to cite flawed polling to suggest that the majority of Americans support the Bush administration's use of warrantless spying, as Media Matters for America has previously documented. Notably, MSNBC political analyst Pat Buchanan, Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, CNBC host Lawrence Kudlow, and conservative radio host Michael Reagan all referenced a December 28 Rasmussen poll -- showing that 64 percent of Americans believe "the National Security Agency [should] be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States" -- to illustrate an alleged majority support for Bush's spy program. However, this poll did not specifically ask if the NSA should be allowed to wiretap without court-approved warrants, which is the main source of criticism of Bush's program.
On January 6 -- two days before Hayes's Eye on Washington appearance -- the AP released the results of the AP/Ipsos poll, making Hayes's claim that "[p]olls show that people generally support him [Bush] on the wiretap issue" even more inaccurate than the claims of those who cited the flawed Rasmussen poll. The AP/Ipsos poll interviewed 1,001 adults from January 3-5. The poll's margin of error is 3.1%.
From the January 8 broadcast of CBS affiliate WUSA-TV's Eye on Washington, which featured Slate national correspondent William Saletan and USA Today Washington bureau chief Susan Page:
SALETAN: Yeah. There's not much he [Bush] can do. He doesn't have any money. I mean, they're out of money so he can't do it. Furthermore, he's a Republican. He generally does believe in smaller government, so it's not like he's aching to spend a lot more money to help you. So, he's going to have to go back to what Steve is talking about: foreign policy; national security; wave the flag; attack Democrats standing in the way of the [USA] Patriot Act; you know, "If you're really an American, you'll stand with me." But that's not going to work anymore. Part of it is the Iraq problem. Part of is the whole National Security Agency -- the surveillance issue. So, people are going to start to distrust people who -- politicians who stand up and say, I'm doing this for your good.
HAYES: Polls show that people --
PAGE: Well, if you think about --
HAYES: Polls show that people support him on that. Polls show that people generally support him on the wiretap issue. I think the more that he talks about foreign policy, the better off he does, largely because people will support him, and I think one doesn't have to be a cynic to think that he's going to talk about foreign policy to gain in the polls.
has cited an extremely flawed poll.
The poll waaay oversampled Democrats over Republicans, 52 to 40 percent. Also, only 81% of respondents were even eligible to vote.
Hayes was correct. In addition, there was nothing "flawed" about the Rasmussen poll. They just didn't ask the question that MMFA wanted!
Whether the respondents were registered voters is irrelevant since we provide rights to all citizens, not just voters. And the question Hayes cites is wholly irrelevant. Many support the ability for the NSA to intercept calls--provided they have a warrant to do so. The question does not ask about warrants.
The right doesn't realize that polls don't matter here--you can't subvert the constitution because 51% of Americans--or even 99%--want to (unless you change it, that is). The 4th Ammendment: It's kind of important, you know?
Is there an echo in here?
The same rabidly partisan BS link by Left045 in two separate threads. What are the odds?
I don't like polls for several reasons the primary of which are they are meaningless and they are easily manipulated as this one appears to have been. Having said that, with regard to the debate about the NSA thing, I'm happy to have the dialog. I am hoping that the Democrats make this a MAJOR issue and harp on it day in and day out. I'll take that debate and feel very, very comfortable that the American people, at least those not eaten up by partisan hate, will understand this to be a necessary and prudent action to protect us, AS IS BUSH'S PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY and that which he has done splendidly since September 11th. So, as the saying goes, BRING IT ON, my leftist friends. I like it!!
Hmmm... I've read all of Article II of the Constitution (it's pretty short - try it!) and I don't see where it says the PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY of the president is to PROTECT US. In fact, the oath of office (Art. II, sec. 1, cl. 8) requires the president to swear that "to the best of my Ability, [I swear to] preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Frankly, I think someone who thinks the president's job is to protect them, like a big strong daddy protecting his trembling little children, is kind of a baby.
"By swearin' to protect the Constitution, I don't mean Constitution, really. I just mean 'Merikuh itself. Heh, heh. Cause that's where the Constitution is stored. Right now it's safe in a special box. And I'm gonna keep it that way by keepin' 'Merikuh safe, you see. Heh, heh."
And what were the people in the twin towers doing that day....shaking and trembling
"And what were the people in the twin towers doing that day....shaking and trembling"
Yes. Bush did a heckuva job protecting them, didn't he?
Because I said so clause in the Constitution. I am perfectly willing to have this debate. I hope you guys keep up with the Bush is a GOD-King and NO LAWS constrain him. He has every right to consider the Fourth amendment and the law as toilet paper. Please Mr President take away my rights, just save me from those scary wolves. The cowards position that we dont want our rights is a losing proposition. The false dichotomy that Bush has to ignore the law and consider it a list of suggestions instead of binding is unsupportable and FALSE. Bush needs to protect American in compliance with the law, IF he is too incompetent to do so he needs to step down and allow someone with the competence to both protect the country AND comply with the law do so. I think you should shout your proposition from the top of a mountain long and loud. Bush is KING. Bush is above the law. Good luck with that.
The poll that MMFA quotes was flawed in a more fundamental way than you suggest. It didn't have a choice that matched the current law. There should have been another choice:
- Should the Bush administration take advantage of a provision in the current law by obtaining warrants within 72 hours after authorizing wiretaps.
Then those who agree with the current law wouldn't be lumped together with those who would prefer trashing the fourth amendment altogether.
- The poll waaay oversampled Democrats over Republicans, 52 to 40 percent. - Left045
Stay right after mmfa on their biased reporting. Their liberal agenda...hidden behind a false commitment to exposing lies...is blatantly obvious.
By the way, you correctly called their overtime push to discredit Judge Alito. They are losing this fight and it is really making their asses hurt. You have repeatedly nailed their weak staff on their pathetic efforts to change the facts...bravo!
Stay right after mmfa on their biased reporting. Their liberal agenda
Funny how you say that like it's some big secret. Um...MMFA makes no bones about being liberal. But they've never been wrong. See, that's what happens when you back up your assertions with in-context quotes and links to objective sources. It's generally the product of good secondary education. The MRC could stand to learn a thing or two, instead of their usual "this is liberal because we say so" nonsense.
Left045 couldn't nail it if he had a hammer.
Keep on exposing the liberal bias of MMFA on their own discussion forums -- way to get the word out. I know you've convinced me. Color me red from now on! I'm going over to RedState.org now, I can't believe this place has been deceiving me for so long. :(
Enjoy the kool-aide!
I'm pretty sure Midsize's comments were entirely tounge in cheek.
make that "tongue"